Deleting old uploaded file attachments

[Tumshie]

8 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Stop that!

Hug

 

[DHutch]

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Ok I've uploaded too many pictures since the facility was set up, and my 'attachments' folder is full. Deleting them to make space is turning into a right chore. I have seven page of files listed and it takes about six mouse clicks/buttons to press to select and delete just one file. Is there a quicker way to select and delete a few hundred files please (mostly images)? 

 

Not ALL of them though. Some I want to keep.

 

Many thanks...

Another option might be to review the limit and increase the number you can store.

2 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

But now your posts with deleted photos won't make sense..

 

That is a concern indeed. Obviously some may be short-term ephemera content, but others may be long term reference material. 

 

I will ask @RichM to look into it. 

 

 

Daniel

[Tumshie]

2 minutes ago, DHutch said:

Another option might be to review the limit and increase the number you can store.

I didn't even know that was an option - is that something we PM admin about or can we do it for our selves. 

 

I don't need to do it but for the members who post a lot of pictures of boats and gatherings this would be useful to know.  

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, DHutch said:

Another option might be to review the limit and increase the number you can store.

Another forum I use has 'tick boxes' along side each one, you can tick any you want to remove, then do a 'mass' delete with one click. alternatively click the 'all' button and then untick the few you wish to keep.

 

Ideally a bigger limit would be better, because I'm sure in most instances folk post pictures as they are relevant to the discussions.

For instance I have just deleted 15Mb of Pdf's of various engine manuals that have been requested (they are between 1Mb and 3Mb each so do take up space.

[rusty69]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Ideally a bigger limit would be better, because I'm sure in most instances folk post pictures as they are relevant to the discussions.

For instance I have just deleted 15Mb of Pdf's of various engine manuals that have been requested (they are between 1Mb and 3Mb each so do take up space.

I never did get that Lister manual though

[DHutch]

I understand the current limit is 200mb per user. Obviously most use far less, but some more active users will likely hit this limit fairly fast. 

 

There is a cost to hosting the content, and for each time it's accesses. Although obviously also a key part of the user experience both in terms of the ease of using the site and also the retention of images as a longer term more robust record, compared to the 'days of old' using a 3rd party image hosting site.

 

 

Daniel 

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

I never did get that Lister manual though

Ooops I still haven't done that one.

Its several 100 pages so it'll take time.

I'll put it on the list.

[rusty69]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Ooops I still haven't done that one.

Its several 100 pages so it'll take time.

I'll put it on the list.

Many thanks .No hurry though.

[RichM]

Thanks for all the feedback. We're currently reviewing the attachment limits. 

 

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, DHutch said:

I understand the current limit is 200mb per user.

Mine says 195.31 MB, but it may be one of these cases about exactly how you define a megabyte!

If this limit was publicised, I wasn't particularly aware of it, but reviewing my photos indicates to me that I have not resized a lot of them before posting, because many other things I use, like Facebook and various blog software make intelligent decisions and do it for you.

On the face of it the forum software doesn't seem to be that clever, and quite a few of my images exceed a megabyte, so if they were all like that, I'd not even be able to retain 200 of them.

Now I know, I'll be far more careful to only post stuff I have resized down to a resolution suitable for web pages.

Am I right in thinking this is probably having a negative impact for people on slow metered connections?  If I'm accessing from a mobile, I must admit I'd rather be downloading 100Kb images than ones maybe 10 times that size.  I'd use up any data allowance a lot slower for a start!

 

It could be worth trying to encourage people to reduce the sizes of what they post, unless the forum software can be made to do that intelligently on their behalf.

[system 4-50]

What would be neat would be to automatically delete all images associated with threads that have no positive greenies and haven't been added to for "n" months.  That way the membership could exercise some selectivity on retained imagery.  Personally I only need A De E's imagery...

[koukouvagia]

I've posted hundreds of pictures over the years and I'm still only 38% full.  I wonder if everyone is resizing their photos?  All my originals are well over 2MB, but the ones I post are usually a tenth of that size.

Edited December 3, 2018 by koukouvagia

[Tumshie]

4 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

What would be neat would be to automatically delete all images associated with threads that have no positive greenies and haven't been added to for "n" months.  That way the membership could exercise some selectivity on retained imagery.  Personally I only need A De E's imagery...

In theory that is a good idea but in practice some really nice piccies could be lost - a lot of people don't greenie the really good stuff.

 

Not to mention I some times get lots of greenie for pointless drivel - that drivel was fun, it was bonding and it helped me build friendships but it's certainly not worth keeping. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Tumshie said:

it's certainly not worth keeping. 

Agreed !!!!!

[Tumshie]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Agreed !!!!!

Thanks 

[system 4-50]

5 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

a lot of people don't greenie the really good stuff.

but we/I would if we/I knew that it mattered?

[Tumshie]

Just now, system 4-50 said:

but we/I would if we/I knew that it mattered?

There is that. 

 

Assuming you haven't run out of greenies. ?

[RichM]

The limit used to be lower than what it is now though I forget exactly what. We increased it when we moved to AWS whereby we had scalable storage, essentially meaning we could not run out of hard drive space. While AWS was great in terms of scalability and reliability it was expensive, unpredictably so. Their lack of PayPal support was was also a pain for us and caused a fair amount of additional admin work for Dan and Nigel. As such we took the decision to move back to a more traditional storage setup whereby the limits remained the same until now.

 

We've bumped up the limit to 250MB in the meantime and will see what more we can do. - Canal World is in part an online resource whereby members and guests alike can access information to help them find answers to questions and problems they need to solve. As such we need to ensure Canal World continues to serve as a platform to facilitate this to a good standard.  - a lot goes on behind the scenes to keep her afloat.

41 minutes ago, koukouvagia said:

I've posted hundreds of pictures over the years and I'm still only 38% full.  I wonder if everyone is resizing their photos?  All my originals are well over 2Mb, but the ones I post are usually less than 100 Kb with no discernible loss of quality.

This. I use Gimp to compress/crop my photos before uploading it to any site. It is free and works a treat. It's a free alternative to Photoshop. Though, I will probably look into server-side compression. 

[system 4-50]

1 minute ago, Tumshie said:

There is that. 

 

Assuming you haven't run out of greenies. ?

I understand that after B***** the supply of greenies will be unlimited, and that milk and honey will flow all over the land, and ....

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, system 4-50 said:

but we/I would if we/I knew that it mattered?

There cannot be many, however obscure, irrelevant, destructive, antagonistic, political or otherwise 'disturbing' threads that someone doesn't give a 'greeny' to.

 

We are a 'weird' bunch and there is a wide variety of subjects that we / someone would support & 'agree with'.

[system 4-50]

Ok, say a minimum of 3. 5735  greenies (per hour) for retention.

[Tumshie]

1 minute ago, system 4-50 said:

Ok, say a minimum of 3. 5735  greenies (per hour) for retention.

I would greenie that but I'm gonna run out have a hug instead. 

 

[David Schweizer]

1 hour ago, DHutch said:

I understand the current limit is 200mb per user. Obviously most use far less, but some more active users will likely hit this limit fairly fast. 

 

There is a cost to hosting the content, and for each time it's accesses. Although obviously also a key part of the user experience both in terms of the ease of using the site and also the retention of images as a longer term more robust record, compared to the 'days of old' using a 3rd party image hosting site.

 

 

Daniel 

Perhaps you should consider putting a limit on the amount of space any individual can use up within a specified period of time. Apart from enabling the fopum to keep within it's budget, it might also limit some of the rubbish we have to tolerate from the same few excessivley verbose individuals.

[rusty69]

oooooh, how rude!

[Tumshie]

5 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

1 hour ago, DHutch said:

I understand the current limit is 200mb per user. Obviously most use far less, but some more active users will likely hit this limit fairly fast. 

 

There is a cost to hosting the content, and for each time it's accesses. Although obviously also a key part of the user experience both in terms of the ease of using the site and also the retention of images as a longer term more robust record, compared to the 'days of old' using a 3rd party image hosting site.

 

 

Daniel 

Perhaps you should consider putting a limit on the amount of space any individual can use up within a specified period of time. Apart from enabling the fopum to keep within it's budget, it might also limit some of the rubbish we have to tolerate from the same few excessivley verbose individuals.

Or perhaps some members could pay a little towards the up keep of the site.